From another thread…

“the conclusion is always there ready-made before the thinking process; the thinking does not serve, as in the rational realm, to arrive at a correct conclusion; rather, it serves to confirm an already existing irrational conclusion and to rationalize it. This is generally called “prejudice”; what is overlooked is that this prejudice has social consequences of considerable magnitude, that it is very wide-spread and practically synonymous with what is called “inertia and tradition”; it is intolerant, that is, it does not tolerate the rational thinking which might do away with it; consequently, the thinking of the emotional plague is inaccessible to arguments; it has its own technique within its own realm, its own “logicality,” as it were; for this reason, it gives the impression of rationality without being actually rational.”

(Wilhelm Reich, Character Analysis, Vision Press Ltd, London, 1969 (1st ed 1933), p 256)

This is something which has always fascinated me: how/why do we know what we know? Have philosophers (as distinct, say, from social psychologists, got an opinion about ‘emotional intelligence’?

Mark: you tend to major on ‘experience’ in terms of your ‘belief’ in God (if I read you right). So do Pentecostals… I’m a little wary of experience (could be biochemical processes at work

–

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher

Related Articles:

• Greece: can you believe this/them?
• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.